Minutes for Strategic Planning Committee meeting, Sep 24 2009, 4.00PM official page

Item No 6

08/02000/OUT - Residential mixed use development comprising 375 dwellings, 5000sqm of employment development (B1) 500 sqm of ancillary uses (A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,D1) new primary school (D1) open space, parking and ancillary landscaping at Site of Former Saighton Camp, Sandy Lane, Huntington, Chester, Cheshire

Councillor Mark Williams declared a personal interest as he was the Ward Member.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 27 August 2009, attached.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 3 September 2009, to follow.

DECIDED:  That

the minutes of the meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 27 August 2009 and 3 September 2009 be approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The Strategic Planning Committee considered the reports of the Head of Development Management that made recommendations for approval and refusal of planning applications, together with the late information report circulated at the meeting as the information contained therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.

The late information report referred to items 5 and 6.

This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.

In reply to a Member’s question the Area Planning Manager replied that the outstanding comments noted in paragraph 5.13 of the main report had not been received.  However, if they were before the end of the consultation period, and Members were minded to approve the application and permission be granted under delegated powers, then any comments would be taken into account accordingly.

Light pollution and noise from the clubhouse was of concern but the Area Planning Manager advised that any lighting would be low level and all lighting details were to be agreed before work commenced so there would be no light spillage.  Noise from the clubhouse would be subject to the restriction on the hours of use, as stated in the report, which were not considered detrimental to the adjacent properties.  He confirmed that there was no floodlighting in the proposal and agreed that should the club require floodlights or other buildings in the future they would be the subject of a further planning application.

The Area Planning Manager advised that the Developer would have to obtain Scheduled Ancient Monument Consent before the work started and that this consent was completely separate to the planning application.

Members questioned how the proposed condition 20 would be policed.  The Area Planning Manager advised that if the authority was made aware of any breaches then these would be treated accordingly.  The details of the 8m buffer strip had been confirmed in the late information report.  Regarding condition 19, Members asked that datum levels be established before any works took place in the areas where levels were to change.  The Area Planning Manager assured them that this would take place and the condition be changed to read ‘Existing and proposed levels’.

A proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously.

DECIDED:  That

this application be approved subject to:

(1)       the Head of Development Management being authorised to grant planning permission upon the expiry of the statutory publicity and consultation period, subject to the receipt of no new substantive issues being raised during this period.

(2)       an alteration to Condition 19 to read ‘ Existing and proposed levels’.

(3)       the conditions detailed in the report.

This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.

Present at the meeting was Martin Kemp who spoke against the application, Ann Farrell who spoke on behalf of Great Boughton Parish Council against the application and Charles Johnson who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant’s agent.

It was noted that a letter had been received from one of the Ward Members who was unable to be present at the meeting and this had been circulated to all Members.  Further late correspondence had been received after the publication of the late information report from Huntington and Christleton Parish Councils which covered concerns already addressed in the report.

Members considered this to be a complicated and finely balanced application.  The site was not specifically allocated in the Local Plan and the land was brownfield.  There were concerns that the 40% target set by the Council for affordable housing would not be met as only 20% was being offered because of the current financial situation.  However market conditions were expected to change in the long term and the Council did not want to be left with an agreed 20% when a stronger market would achieve a higher affordable housing figure.  They questioned the sustainability of the remainder of the site and were concerned that, as it was likely to take 10 years for the development to be finished, the school and other beneficial elements would never be achieved.  Furthermore, Members were agreed that it would not serve the local residents well if the remainder of the site was developed piecemeal. 

Members considered that the road link to the A55 was critical to enable the highways system to deal with the volume of traffic that the site would generate.  There was a large discrepancy in the estimated costs of the link but Highways and Planning considered that it was unlikely that it would be built.

The Travel Plan and how enforceable it was, was discussed.  The Principal Development Officer (Highways) agreed that people could not be forced to change their travel habits.  An improved bus service would result from the five year bus subsidy that would be included in the Section 106 Legal Agreement. 

A proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously.

DECIDED:  That

this application be refused for the following reasons:

(1)    the proposals, in utilising the local highway network to its capacity, would result in the inability of that network to accommodate any development of the remaining part of the previously-developed land at Saighton Camp for uses generating a significant amount of traffic and rendering that land unlikely to be developed, leaving it unused and likely to visually degenerate, and prejudicing it from contributing to the housing and other land use needs of the Borough.  As such, the proposals would be contrary to the proper planning of the area, sustainable development principles and the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to the advice contained within PPS1, PPS3, PPS6 and the provisions of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

There was no urgent business.